Skip to Highlights
Highlights

INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 25. WHEREIN YOU PROTEST AGAINST WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO HAVE BEEN UNFAIR TREATMENT ACCORDED YOU BY THE GENTILE AIR FORCE. THE BASIS OF YOUR PROTEST IS THAT NEITHER YOU NOR YOUR SUPPLIER. RECEIVED AN INVITATION TO BID IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCUREMENT ALTHOUGH THE DEPOT WAS APPRISED OF YOUR DESIRE TO SUBMIT BIDS. CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING PERTINENT INFORMATION: "MANHATTAN'S COMPLAINT IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT NEITHER IT NOR THE COMPANY FOR WHICH IT ACTS AS DISTRIBUTOR WERE SOLICITED FOR PROPOSALS ON CERTAIN CARTRIDGE FUSES BEING PROCURED UNDER RFP 33-604-55-2276. BOTH PROCUREMENTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED. ACTUALLY WAS COVERED BY SPECIFICATIONS.

View Decision

B-118405, MAY 8, 1956

TO MANHATTAN LIGHTING EQUIPMENT CO., INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 25, 1956, AND TO YOUR PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, WITH ATTACHMENT, WHEREIN YOU PROTEST AGAINST WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO HAVE BEEN UNFAIR TREATMENT ACCORDED YOU BY THE GENTILE AIR FORCE, DAYTON AIR FORCE DEPOT, IN CONNECTION WITH ITS PROCUREMENT OF CARTRIDGE FUSES.

THE BASIS OF YOUR PROTEST IS THAT NEITHER YOU NOR YOUR SUPPLIER, THE SUPERIOR FUSE COMPANY, RECEIVED AN INVITATION TO BID IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCUREMENT ALTHOUGH THE DEPOT WAS APPRISED OF YOUR DESIRE TO SUBMIT BIDS.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT DATED MAY 1, 1956, FURNISHED TO OUR OFFICE IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE TRANSACTION, CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING PERTINENT INFORMATION:

"MANHATTAN'S COMPLAINT IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT NEITHER IT NOR THE COMPANY FOR WHICH IT ACTS AS DISTRIBUTOR WERE SOLICITED FOR PROPOSALS ON CERTAIN CARTRIDGE FUSES BEING PROCURED UNDER RFP 33-604-55-2276. PREVIOUSLY, THE AIR FORCE HAD REQUESTED PROPOSALS FOR THESE FUSES AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER RFP 33-604-55-1151 AND RFP 33-604-55-1185. BOTH PROCUREMENTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED, HOWEVER, UPON DISCOVERY THAT MANY OF THE ITEMS, WHICH HAD MERELY BEEN DESCRIBED BY A SHORT DESCRIPTION AND A COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURER'S PART NUMBER, ACTUALLY WAS COVERED BY SPECIFICATIONS. NONE OF THE ITEMS UNDER RFP 33-604-55-1185 WERE REPROCURED IN FY 1955 SINCE, ON RECHECKING THE REQUIREMENT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT EXISTING STOCKS WERE ADEQUATE. THE SAME ACTION WAS TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO RFP 33-604-55-1151, EXCEPT FOR THE CARTRIDGE FUSES IN QUESTION FOR WHICH PROPOSALS WERE RESOLICITED UNDER RFP 33 604-55-2276. NEITHER MANHATTAN NOR ITS MANUFACTURER, THE SUPERIOR FUSE COMPANY, WERE SOLICITED ON THIS NEW PROCUREMENT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE FUSES WERE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS AND SUPERIOR HAD NOT QUALIFIED AS A MANUFACTURER OF THESE ITEMS. IT WAS THE JUDGMENT OF THE BUYER THAT INSUFFICIENT TIME EXISTED PRIOR TO AWARD TO PERMIT QUALIFICATION. HENCE, RFP 33-604-55-2276 WAS ONLY SENT TO THE ONE MANUFACTURER WHICH HAD QUALIFIED ITS PRODUCT, THE BURNDY ENGINEERING COMPANY, AND ITS DISTRIBUTORS, A TOTAL OF 20 FIRMS, FROM WHICH EIGHT PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED. AWARD WAS MADE TO THE LOW BIDDER, GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, DAYTON, OHIO, IN THE AMOUNT OF $206,531.33.

"THE FY 1956 REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE FUSES WERE PURCHASED UNDER A REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF CALL CONTRACT. SUFFICIENT TIME FOR QUALIFICATION OF THE PRODUCT WAS PERMITTED. BOTH SUPERIOR AND MANHATTAN WERE SOLICITED. SUPERIOR SUBMITTED A QUOTATION AND WAS AWARDED A CONTRACT. MANHATTAN, ITS DISTRIBUTOR, FAILED TO SUBMIT A QUOTATION.'

IN VIEW OF THIS EXPLANATION OF WHAT TRANSPIRED WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT, OUR OFFICE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN QUESTIONING THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN IN THE MATTER.

GAO Contacts